W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Minutes (draft) telecon 2003-03-14

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:33:01 +0000 (GMT)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0303171154060.21201-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>



Roll call:


  Dave Beckett
  Dan Brickley
  Mike Dean
  Jan Grant (scribe)
  Pat Hayes
  Graham Klyne
  Frank Manola
  Brian McBride (chair)
  Eric Miller

Regrets: (not recorded)

Next telecon:

  Due to the anticipated low turnout next Tuesday, the next telecon
  will be Friday, March 21st, 120 minutes long.
  Dave Beckett volunteered to scribe.

Item 5: Minutes of telecon 2003-02-28

Item 6: Minutes of telecon 2003-03-11

Item 7: completed actions

  Long list, all confirmed.

Item 8: XML Schema 1.1 requirements.

  DaveB sent an immediate ack to the XMLSchema group.
  The action 2003-02-14#2 continues with JJC to pick up DaveB's
    draft comments.

Item 9: Handling LC comments.
  Danbri solicited help with schema comments.

ACTION 2003-03-14#1 (jang) take a final pass of the -comments list
	to identify remaining items that have not been dealt with
	or been assigned process numbers

ACTION 2003-03-14#2 (bwm for gk,jjc) Chase EricP's message and get a
	process resolution for it:

ACTION 2003-03-14#3 (gk) chase Aaron's response to ensure he's ok with

Item 10: PFPS issues -17 -18 -19 -20 -21

 o throughout the docs
    - the term [xml namespace] be used to refer to xml namespaces
    - the term [vocabulary] be used to refer to collections of names
      (RDF URI References]
 o the editors update their docs accordingly
 o bwm responds to pfps for all these issues

RESOLVED (0 abstains 0 against)

Item 11: macgregor-01 macgregor-02

  Proposal: to close this, with actions on editors to review for use
	of the term "asserted" in light of these comments.
  REVOLVED (0 abstain 0 against)

ACTION 2003-03-14#4 (gk) respond wrt macgregor-01 and macgregor-02
	(mentioning that the other docs are being checked too)

ACTION 2003-03-14#5 (ALL EDITORS) check for use of term "asserted" and
	modify in the light of comment macgregor-01

Item 12: reagle-01 reagle-02 skipped in jjc's absence.

Item 13: williams-01


  GK's proposal:

  After some discussion it was felt that the words of the proposal
  needed rethinking; that convenience terms such as "RDF Node" should
  be defined in one place only. GK agreed to have another look
  in the light of these comments.

Item 14: pfps-03

  The item remains open until the rest of the document is fixed so that
  LBase translations can be confirmed for accuracy.

Item 15: pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -10
Item 16: pfps-08

  PatH: genuine bugs PFPS found which have been corrected in the
  editor's draft:

ACTION 2003-03-14#6 (gk) review semantics editor's draft wrt
	changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

ACTION 2003-03-14#7 (jang) review semantics editor's draft wrt
	changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

  WRT item pfps-08, the closing resolution is:
  RDFCore do not accept this comment. The semantics are as intended.
  The text has been clarified to make this clearer.

  RESOLVED (0 abst 0 ag'in)

ACTION 2003-03-14#8 (bwm) update issue list to point to PatH's response
	to PFPS on pfps-08

Item 17: qu-01

  Proposed: this WG resolves that...
  the use of a container membership property or rdfs:member in a triple
  should not be taken as a claim that the subject of the triple is a

  RESOLVED (0 abst 0 ag'in)

ACTION 2003-03-14#9 (path) respond to qu-01

Item 18: qu-02

  rdfs:member isn't a functional property because functional properties
  are being dealt with by OWL; not RDF's domain.

  Danbri: mozilla would break if this were disallowed.

  Propose: we reject qu-02 (with thanks) on the grounds that (a) the
  suggestion is not necessary; and (b) it might damage the behaviour
  of existing code.

  RESOLVED (0 abst 0 ag'in)

ACTION 2003-03-14#10 (path) respond to qu-02

Item 19: xmlsch-08

  DaveB's proposal:

  Proposaed: we accept the comment, and in response DaveB agrees with
  the reasons not to use xsi:type (adding additional ones); point
  at the explanation; give an example of how if someone uses xsi:type by
  mistake and rdf/xml parser would pick up the error.

  RESOLVED (0 abst 0 against)

With a shortage of time the WG proceeded to

Item 24: horrocks-01

  There was quite a bit of discussion on this (see transcript).
  There's sympathy with the need for semantically empty comments
  for use in large-scale ontological engineering; in deployment,
  rdfs:comment is currently used as "description" [danc]

  The discussion moved to email:
ACTION 2003-03-14#11 (path) produce words for a resolution to horrocks-01

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Leverage that synergy! Ooh yeah, looking good! Now stretch - and relax.
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 07:34:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC